STATE OF ARIZONA v. TYSON JOSEPH HILAND
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED BY CLERK NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 APR 24 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. TYSON JOSEPH HILAND, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2013-0048-PR DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF YAVAPAI COUNTY Cause No. P1300CR20070899 Honorable Celé Hancock, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Sheila S. Polk, Yavapai County Attorney By Sheila S. Polk David Goldberg Prescott Attorneys for Respondent Fort Collins, CO Attorney for Petitioner M I L L E R, Judge. ¶1 Pursuant to a 2008 plea agreement, petitioner Tyson Hiland was convicted of theft and fraudulent schemes. The trial court sentenced Hiland to an aggravated, tenyear prison term, to be followed by a seven-year probationary term upon his release from prison. Hiland then filed a petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. The court summarily dismissed Hiland s petition and this petition for review followed. We will not disturb a trial court s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). We find no such abuse here. ¶2 On review, Hiland contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying post-conviction relief based on the following claims: the court failed to adequately analyze the package plea agreement pursuant to State v. Solano, 150 Ariz. 398, 402, 724 P.2d 17, 21 (1986); trial counsel was ineffective based on off the record advice he gave Hiland regarding the likely outcome if he pled guilty; the court illegally imposed consecutive sentences, which were unreasonably disproportionate to the other defendants sentences and failed to consider the overwhelming mitigating evidence; and, the trial judge, who was not the same as the Rule 32 judge, created the appearance of impropriety as evidenced by the presence of a letter sent to the judge by a detective who had testified in this case. Hiland also asserts he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing. ¶3 Based on the record before us, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in denying Hiland s petition for post-conviction relief. The court denied relief as to three of the four defendants, including Hiland, in a twelve-page, detailed and thorough ruling that clearly identified his arguments, followed by a supplemental order that specifically addressed Hiland s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, and the court correctly ruled on the claims in a manner that will allow this court and any court in the future to understand their resolution. State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). We therefore approve and adopt the court s rulings and see no need to restate them here. See id. 2 ¶4 Additionally, relying on Hurles v. Ryan, 650 F.3d 1301 (9th Cir. 2011), Hiland argues for the first time in his reply to the state s response to the petition for review that this court should not afford any deference on review to the Rule 32 judge s ruling based on the factual dispute between the affidavits submitted by Petitioner and the cold record. Because Hiland failed to cite Hurles in his petition for review, giving the state the opportunity to respond accordingly, we decline to address this argument. See State v. Ramirez, 126 Ariz. 464, 468, 616 P.2d 924, 928 (App. 1980); see also Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (petition for review shall contain [t]he issues which were decided by the trial court and which the defendant wishes to present for review).1 ¶5 Accordingly, we grant the petition for review but deny relief. /s/ Michael Miller MICHAEL MILLER, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge* *A retired judge of the Arizona Court of Appeals authorized and assigned to sit as a judge on the Court of Appeals, Division Two, pursuant to Arizona Supreme Court Order filed December 12, 2012. 1 Moreover, after Hiland submitted his reply to the petition for review in which he cited Hurles, the United States Court of Appeals withdrew that opinion and superseded it with a new one. Hurles v. Ryan, 706 F.3d 1021 (9th Cir. 2013). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
